Aunt Mavis
I have met the enemy and he is us. Pogo
When does it become archaeology instead of grave-robbing? They both seem the same to me. Discuss.
Archaeology is a living.Archaeology I think has the intent to further understanding of our past. It is broader than discovering the remains of humans.
Grave robbing is with the intent to do as the term suggests rob.
Intent being the key to my opinion on what I perceive as the difference.
Seek and dig up dinosaur bones?Yes and what would these archeologists do for a living if not robbing graves?????
Rob the living, like most other elites.Yes and what would these archeologists do for a living if not robbing graves?????
How can they prefer anything? I mean, they're dead.I’m guessing that the departed would prefer to be left alone regardless of the time passed.
Does your post mean you are attributing sentient ability to skeletal bones?I’m guessing that the departed would prefer to be left alone regardless of the time passed.
But there is a third choice.I looked this up this morning. I think it goes along with my post last night about intent.
Originally Answered: Are archaeologists, anthropologists, and paleontologists technically grave robbers?
Consider an analogy.
Two men, armed with firearms, pull up in front of a bank. One jumps out of the vehicle, walks into the bank, the tellers see he's carrying a gun, and the bank manager hands over a sack of cash. The guy walks out of the bank, where his partner is sitting in the vehicle with the engine running. He jumps in, and the vehicle speeds away.
A second vehicle pulls up, with two men carrying firearms. One goes into the bank, the tellers see the gun, the bank manager hands over a sack full of cash, and the man leaves the bank and gets in the car which his partner has kept running. They speed away.
One of those two “getaway cars" is owned by the Brinks Inc. Security company. The other is a car owned by a notorious bank robber.
Are those two events technically the same?
One is performing a necessary service, after filling out all of the relevant paperwork and registering with the appropriate local, state, and federal authorities. The other is a couple of criminals.
If you conclude that Brinks guards are basically bank robbers, then you can make an arrangement that archaeologists are technically grave robbers.
But if you acknowledge the difference between “legal, permitted, and officially sanctioned actions” on the one hand and “crime" on the other hand, then no, archaeologists are not the same as grave robbers.
Are archeologists technically grave robbers?
Does your post mean you are attributing sentient ability to skeletal bones?
How do you know what the wishes of the deceased are?But there is a third choice.
I can conclude that, because the state had no authority to invalidate the wishes of the deceased, the license to violate the grave is invalid. Therefore archeologists are grave robbers.
Bones may die, but spirits might hang around and haunt as needed.
I don't know, boss, and I don't care because I won't be robbing any graves.How do you know what the wishes of the deceased are?
How exactly would spirits haunt?
Pillage ruins.Yes and what would these archeologists do for a living if not robbing graves?????
They do, but only when they get permission from Native Americans. And now, there are several native American archeologists who are very qualified to do the digging.Wonder how long before the archy's start digging graves
in USA ???
Agreed.But there is a third choice.
I can conclude that, because the state had no authority to invalidate the wishes of the deceased, the license to violate the grave is invalid. Therefore archeologists are grave robbers.
Bones may die, but spirits might hang around and haunt as needed.
Yes, they’re dead.How can they prefer anything? I mean, they're dead.
Good one. Lol.It's archeology when an archeologist is doing the robbing.